- within Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- in Turkey
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
- within Antitrust/Competition Law, Privacy and Employment and HR topic(s)
November 2025 – In October, the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") continued its firm commitment to safeguarding market integrity through a series of significant decisions. The scope of its enforcement was broad, spanning major cartel activity in the labour market (pharmaceutical sector), abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude competitors (Tetra Pak), and a massive fine for breach of commitments in the glass recycling industry (Şişecam). This issue of Quick Read provides a concise, high-impact summary of the most notable competition law developments in Türkiye.
Dive into October Case Updates
1. TCA grants conditional approval to CEVA's acquisition of Borusan Tedarik
The Turkish Competition Board (the "Board") conditionally approved the acquisition of local logistics provider Borusan Tedarik by global giant CEVA Corporate Services.1
To alleviate competition concerns—specifically the potential for foreclosure—CEVA submitted a comprehensive set of behavioural commitments. These are designed to ensure service continuity and fair market access:
- Customer Transition: For one year, CEVA must provide up to 12 months of transition services to customers who wish to switch suppliers or whose contracts expire.
- Fair Competitor Access: For two years, competitors must be granted access to the merged entity's existing distribution network on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, if requested.
- Contractual Safeguards: All existing customer contracts must remain in force without interruption for one year. Crucially, a three-month termination clause must be included in all new and existing contracts (signed within one year post-closing).
- Price Cap: For one year, prices for domestic transport and warehousing services cannot be increased beyond current contractual limits.
- No Bundling: For two years, the merged entity must refrain from tying or bundling different contractual logistics services (e.g., warehousing and distribution).
- Monitoring: An independent monitoring trustee, approved by the TCA, must be appointed to submit compliance reports every six months for two years.
2. TCA fines Novonesis for rebate schemes
Following an investigation into the industrial enzymes market, the TCA concluded that the economic unity formed by Novo Holdings and its group companies ("Novonesis") abused its dominant position through loyalty-inducing rebate schemes and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 284.5 million (approx. EUR 5.8 million).2
The Board found that Novonesis abused its dominance through:
- a "most-favoured customer" clause and a loyalty-inducing rebate scheme in the asparaginase enzyme market;
- a loyalty-inducing rebate scheme in the fungal alpha-amylase enzyme market; and
- exclusive agreements and a loyalty-inducing rebate scheme in the glucoamylase enzyme market.
3. Fines for pharma sector 'no-poach' agreements
The TCA concluded its investigation into the pharmaceutical labour market, finding widespread collusion among major players.
Infringement through no-poaching agreements: Adeka, Argis, Arven, Berko, Farmatek, Helba, Ilko, Sanovel, Santa Farma, and Servier were found to have engaged in illegal no-poaching agreements (cartels in the labour market).
Competitively sensitive information exchange: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi illegally exchanged competitively sensitive information concerning future employee salaries and benefits.3
Total fine: The Board imposed administrative fines totaling TRY 244.8 million (approx. EUR 5 million) on these 17 undertakings.4 This fine, combined with the earlier settlement phase involving six other companies (namely Menarini, Abdi İbrahim, Bilim İlaç, Drogsan, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genveon), brings the total penalties in this investigation to TRY 726.4 million (approx. EUR 14.9 million).5
4. Tetra Pak fined for abuse of dominance through intellectual property rights
The Board imposed a fine of TRY 130.8 million (approx. EUR 2.6 million) on the economic unity consisting of Tetra Pak Paketleme Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. and Tetra Laval Holding & Finance S.A. (together "Tetra Pak") , providing food processing and packaging solutions, for abusing its dominant position in the markets for aseptic liquid food carton packaging filling machines and aseptic liquid food carton packaging.6
- Abusive Conduct: Tetra Pak was found to have leveraged its registered 3D trademarks and design rights for prism-shaped packaging to exclude competitors from the market. This strategy effectively tied the sale of filling machines and packaging materials, forcing undertakings to purchase both from Tetra Pak. According to the Board, Tetra Pak not only prevented rival or customer production beyond the legitimate scope of trademark protection, but also sought to block the manufacturing of prism-shaped packaging entirely through broad, overlapping trademark and design filings.
- Remedies: In addition to the fine, the Board ordered Tetra Pak to abandon the relevant registered trademarks and design rights and withdraw all pending 3D trademark applications related to the conduct.
- Global Context: The TCA highlighted that similar abuses had been found by the European Commission7 and the Chinese Competition Authority8, suggesting this practice is part of the company's global business strategy.
5. Şişecam hit with TRY 3.1 billion fine for commitment breach
In a major enforcement action, the TCA imposed a staggering fine of TRY 3.1 billion (approx. EUR 64.6 million) on Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları AŞ ("Şişecam") and its subsidiary Şişecam Çevre Sistemleri AŞ ("Çevre Sistemleri") for non-compliance with previous commitments.9
The Board found that the economic unity breached its commitment to limit the procurement of unprocessed flat glass to a maximum of 15,000 tons. The fine was calculated daily based on 0.05% of its turnover for the period of non-compliance.
In a separate but related case, Çevre Sistemleri and Karacalar Nak. Oto. Geri Dönüşüm San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. ("Karacalar") were also found to have engaged in a collusive cartel to fix glass cullet prices, allocate regions, and exchange sensitive information.10 Given that Çevre Sistemleri had already been subject to a daily administrative fine under the first decision, no additional fine was imposed on it in this case, while Karacalar was fined TRY 1.9 million (approx. EUR 40,000).
6. Adidas fined for resale price maintenance
The TCA concluded its investigation into Adidas, imposing an administrative fine of TRY 402.3 million (approx. EUR 8.2 million).11 The brand was penalised for intervening in the resale prices of its authorised dealers. This reinforces the TCA's strict stance against practices that restrict intra-brand competition.
7. Ziraat Bank pledges commitments on payment services
Following an investigation into allegations of customer restrictions against payment service providers, Ziraat Bank offered commitments to resolve the competition concerns.12 The concern was that Ziraat Bank was limiting access for payment service providers to its designated "branded customers", i.e., merchant clients designated by Ziraat Bank. The TCA examined whether payment service providers were prevented from serving these merchants, effectively creating customer restrictions. The Board concluded that Ziraat Bank had restricted intra-brand competition and imposed customer limitations without resorting to active or passive sales discrimination.
To address this, Ziraat Bank's three-year commitments include a defined procedure for processing all merchant onboarding requests and a 15-business-day maximum deadline to provide a response for "branded customers".
8. TCA decides not to impose a fine for dawn raid obstruction against Samsung
During its on-site inspection at Samsung, the inspection team of the TCA reviewed communications on Knox Teams, the company's internal messaging platform. After the inspection began, some employees left three Knox Teams groups, which automatically removed the group chats. The inspection team then examined the mobile devices of remaining group members and accessed all communications within these groups and found no documents or messages relevant to the investigation. As a result, the Board determined that these actions did not obstruct or hinder the on-site inspection. Despite dissenting opinions within the Board that the ability to recover data should be ignored, the TCA concluded that the inspection was not obstructed or hindered, and therefore, no obstruction fine was imposed.13
Stay tuned for our next issue of Quick Read, where we will continue to bring you the latest in competition law developments in Türkiye.
Footnotes
1 CEVA/Borusan (23.10.2025, 25-40/967-560).
2 Novonesis (23.10.2025).
3 Pharma Sector Labour Market (11.09.2025, 25-34/810-474).
4 EUR figures throughout this document have been converted at the exchange rate EUR 1 = TRY 48.78.
5 Menarini (08.11.2024), Genveon (08.11.2024), Bilim İlaç (15.08.2024, 24-33/782-329), Drogsan (22.08.2024), Abdi İbrahim (16.04.2024), GlaxoSmithKline (16.04.2024).
6 Tetra Pak (01.08.2024, 24-32/758-319).
7 European Commission, Tetra Pak I OJ (1988) L 272/27, (1988) 4 CMLR881; Tetra Pak II OJ (1992) L 72/1, (1992) 4 CMLR 551.
8 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f136b8fe-aaf2-432e-b409-ec99dac0f990 (Last access: 24.10.2025)
9 Şişecam Non-Compliance (16.10.2025, 25-39/927-542).
10 Çevre Sistemleri-Karacalar (16.10.2025, 25-39/928-543).
11 Adidas (02.10.2025).
12 Ziraat Bank (10.04.2025, 25-14/330-157).
13 Samsung (10.04.2025, 25-14/330-157).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
